301 replies to this topic

[Dannylonglegs]

JimButcher, on 07 December 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

Umm... how does it not make sense? Just because it hasn't happened in previous games... of life doesn't mean it will never happen. If you have that mentality about these types of situations then how can anything ever be possible? I suggest you consult the 'day killer' entry on the encyclopedia for these games... of life.

And why would that surprise you? Why have you been assuming that the target was blocked or protected? It's the simplest solution (something about a razor...) to assume that there was a scum day kill.

I'm not saying that there's no possibility of the day killer being the vig, I just think it's strange that that we had no kill last night. Yes, block/protect/conversion are possibilities, but the likelihood that one of those people chose wisely is very slim. And if it was our blocker, then I hope he or she can come forward with whoever they blocked so we can lynch the killer. Preferably without revealing their role, but results are results...

Well, I won't discount the possibility that there is a Day-killer, but I highly doubt it. As a famous Horse once said, the simplest answer is often the right one.

I'm not quite sure why you think that there's a day killer, and I'll explain why I doubt it clearly.

A. I don't see any evidence. I think you may be referring to Zara's death yesterday as evidence, right? I think that was a death enacted by God's will after she neglected to put a picture of her face and her name on her holy name-tag by the end if voting as god told her to.

B. I see no precedent for a scum day-killer (or a day-vig for that matter) from previous experiences in the stables. Furthermore, such an action would seem unbalanced unless other night actions designed to stop and identify the scum also occurred during the day, which would be strange, but I guess possible. It is possible that someone's lunch could kill during the day, but again, I'd be surprised. The lunches don't sound that powerful.

C. There are three more likely actions, those being; conversion, blockage, and protection. These are simple, common actions (Unfortunately so with the first. It usually just leads to trouble.) and are therefore more likely than a day-killer.

Ooops, I almost forgot:

D. Zara would be a dumb target for the scum: she was non-participatory and not as likely to be meta-killed.

[JimButcher]

Hinckley, on 07 December 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Why are you insisting? I just doubt Zara was a good Scum target. Yes, I could be wrong. I realize my wording was obtuse. That's why I put it that way. But Occam's Razor to me is that it is more of a vig or serial kill than a Scum. That's just my opinion. You didn't even remember that Zara had died. She was on your list of suspects when I contacted you ... for stalking me.

I'm insisting that you consider it a possibility. Right now you "refuse to believe" that there's a scum day killer. So you're insisting, as well. I just don't understand the certainty you have about the day killer. Having a theory is one thing, but "refuse to believe"? It make me think that you know something I don't.

I do recognize that others have presented their theories as just that - theories, about the day killer. So my "insisting" is not all-inclusive and pertains more to Oscar and perhaps Dansmith, who seem to be pretty sure that they're right... that's just my sense of it, though.

Quote

Ice cream sandwich. I don't have a sprinkled cupcake and I certainly never said that.

Okay, then I was mistaken. You did say that she gave you her lunch, I must have made the connection somewhere that it was sprinkles. I'll have to check my facts later, I'm sick from all this horseshit (literally) and need sleep.

Quote

Yeesht. No offense. I don't know why you're getting so defensive. So, looking back you said you were "pretty sure" Jane is Scum if Trisha is Town. That's a marginal degree of certainty. I just don't see it in the quote we referenced. I agree Jane was someone I wanted to hear more from, but I'm not "pretty sure" she's Scum as I haven't seen enough to feel that way. Yes, I agree I'm latching onto two words now, but that's just how I felt.

Defensive? I was simply answering your question, to elaborate on why I think Jane is scum. Yes, you are latching onto two words, and you still haven't answered why you think Jane is suspicious. After all, you're the one who told the vig to kill her today, so there must be a damn good reason that I apparently have not illustrated yet.

Oh, and thank you Dansmith for providing your detailed reasons on believing that the day killer was scum. I take back what I said about your baseless claim earlier.

[Hinckley]

Captain Genaro, on 07 December 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

Assuming that there are two killers, ( a SK and a scum killer), I would assume that it was the SK that killed Zara. Killing Zara seems like a wasted kill for the scum considering how quiet she was, especially when they had so many more valuable, unprotected targets. Unless, of course the scum knew something about Zara which we don't (but I doubt that).

Which targets were unprotected?

[fhomess]

The only way the scum killing Zara makes any sense would be if they had already found out information about Zara that led them to believe Zara was a threat to them.  Given how much Zara contributed, I doubt they would've used any sort of day investigation on Zara.  They can't have expected to be accurately day-watched or whatever other day actions anyone might have, so it strikes me as particularly odd that Jimmy is holding it against anyone who puts Zara's death on the scum very far near the bottom of likeliness.

By the way, stealing lunch seems very anti-townie.  It also doesn't strike me as a lunch action, so that might be one of the scum skills.  Jimmy, was there any detail given about how or when your lunch was stolen?  Given that you didn't publicly state you had lunch yesterday, and a few others did state that, I'm surprised it was YOUR lunch that was stolen.

[Hinckley]

Dannylonglegs, on 07 December 2012 - 06:32 AM, said:

A. I don't see any evidence. I think you may be referring to Zara's death yesterday as evidence, right? I think that was a death enacted by God's will after she neglected to put a picture of her face and her name on her holy name-tag by the end if voting as god told her to.

But she was killed before the day concluded...

JimButcher, on 07 December 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

I'm insisting that you consider it a possibility. Right now you "refuse to believe" that there's a scum day killer. So you're insisting, as well. I just don't understand the certainty you have about the day killer. Having a theory is one thing, but "refuse to believe"? It make me think that you know something I don't.

I take that back. I don't "refuse to believe it". Anything's possible. I thought twice about wording it that way at the time and decided to and shouldn't have. I still think it's highly unlikely, but stranger things have happened. Like Shadell agreeing with me...and vice versa.

JimButcher, on 07 December 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

Okay, then I was mistaken. You did say that she gave you her lunch, I must have made the connection somewhere that it was sprinkles. I'll have to check my facts later, I'm sick from all this horseshit (literally) and need sleep.

Sprinkles! Nom nom nom

JimButcher, on 07 December 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

Defensive? I was simply answering your question, to elaborate on why I think Jane is scum. Yes, you are latching onto two words, and you still haven't answered why you think Jane is suspicious. After all, you're the one who told the vig to kill her today, so there must be a damn good reason that I apparently have not illustrated yet.

I said I'd like to hear more from her. That was annoying yesterday that she voted, citing Zara as the genius to follow and then disappeared. She could simply be lazy or she could be trying to appear to be going along with the crowd to avoid suspicion. Either way it was sloppy and if she's Town, very irresponsible to drop in and pretend to be paying attention. I do want to hear from her today and if she's not going to stop by and explain or engage, I do stand by my idea that she'd make a good vig kill target if there is a day vig and nothing else presents itself.

[Fred Daniel Yam]

This is so sad, and disappointing. Two towns in a day/night. In other news, my beef pasty got stolen in the night

[JimButcher]

fhomess, on 07 December 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

By the way, stealing lunch seems very anti-townie.  It also doesn't strike me as a lunch action, so that might be one of the scum skills.  Jimmy, was there any detail given about how or when your lunch was stolen?  Given that you didn't publicly state you had lunch yesterday, and a few others did state that, I'm surprised it was YOUR lunch that was stolen.

I was surprised, too. Since there seems to be some controversy around this, and it's not hugely substantial to the town's victory, I'll put this out there: my lunch action, that I did not use and was stolen, was also a thief action. I am town and therefore can say that the thief lunch is not exclusively a scum action, but of course you can only take my word for that.

It also appears that the police chief lady's lunch was stolen... are we all thieves?

Hinckley, on 07 December 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

I take that back. I don't "refuse to believe it". Anything's possible. I thought twice about wording it that way at the time and decided to and shouldn't have. I still think it's highly unlikely, but stranger things have happened. Like Shadell agreeing with me...and vice versa.

Alright then, glad to see you come around and explain your reasoning a little more, and at least considering other possibilities.

Quote

I said I'd like to hear more from her. That was annoying yesterday that she voted, citing Zara as the genius to follow and then disappeared. She could simply be lazy or she could be trying to appear to be going along with the crowd to avoid suspicion. Either way it was sloppy and if she's Town, very irresponsible to drop in and pretend to be paying attention. I do want to hear from her today and if she's not going to stop by and explain or engage, I do stand by my idea that she'd make a good vig kill target if there is a day vig and nothing else presents itself.

So you're reasons are basically the same as mine. So why were you having such a hard time seeing why I suspected Jane? It's a disconnect in my reasoning, yet tgood reason for a vig kill based on your identical reasoning? You're acting weird, Oscar.

[Dannylonglegs]

Hinckley, on 07 December 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

But she was killed before the day concluded...

My un-vote stopped the day from concluding earlier, I think. Also, I don't think God said that we had to have faces and names on our holy name-tags before the day ended, but rather before the end of voting, which should technically have happened. I think.

[Tamamono]

Hinckley, on 07 December 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

She said Tammy may be pulling a Darth Potato. Whatever that means.

I think it means she suspected me. A hooker in a great cop novel I read used to call herself Darth Potato, and she was scum, so I think that's what Trish was referring to.

JimButcher, on 07 December 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

Refuse to believe? Now that's close-minded. We must consider all possibilities, and if we can't do that we might as well be doomed...

I've noticed that quite a few of you are quick to automatically dismiss even the slightest possibility of the day killer being scum....

Honestly, the scum have no reason to knock off someone like Zara, who would likely have had a mislynch wasted on her had she not been killed. A more discreet kill is always in favor of the serial killer - we don't know if there are more day actions out there, and neither does the serial killer (unless this situation is different in that aspect too), so it's in his/her best interests to kill those who won't be touched by any actions

An inexperienced vigilante is possible too. I'd expect a dayvig to go for a quiet target too, especially on the first day.

Quote

Shadell, I'm not so sure about putting all of our lunches on the table, so to speak. We are at an advantage now, you're correct, but doing what you suggest seems like an easy way for the scum to get all of the info quickly, as well...

I have to agree here - the less info we share, the less info gets leaked to the scum. All PRs should stay hidden until they uncover something good/have someone CLEAR to claim to.

Quote

Don't put words into my mouth, I said I was fairly sure that Jane was scum. And why are you calling me out on this now? I was agreeing with one of your suspects that you told me in private. Heck, I don't even need the private conversation as proof, you said today, right here, that the day killer vig should aim for Jane. What makes me suspicious of Jane? I'll ask you the same question. But since you asked first:

As I said before, Jane's lazy response is an indicator to me of scummy behavior. She literally picked the response before her (which was lazy and didn't add much to the conversation to begin with), and simply said "yeah I agree", and voted. Considering the fact that Trisha was town, I'm more than certain there were at least some scum on the bandwagon yesterday. This response struck me as particularly scummy.

Although Jane's not said much and, I admit, is pretty scummy, I find her almost impossible to read; she's always like this.

And I don't think Oscar was trying to put words in your mouth nor incriminate you for anything. Why are you getting so defensive all of a sudden?

fhomess, on 07 December 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

By the way, stealing lunch seems very anti-townie.  It also doesn't strike me as a lunch action, so that might be one of the scum skills.  Jimmy, was there any detail given about how or when your lunch was stolen?  Given that you didn't publicly state you had lunch yesterday, and a few others did state that, I'm surprised it was YOUR lunch that was stolen.

Yeah, this kitchen thievery certainly sounds a bit fishy. That's actually a good point; in a situation like this, the scum would probably have a lunch thief.

But Penny claims to have had her lunch stolen as well. Could there be multiple lunch thiefs? Maybe an independent lunch thief whose goal is to eat so much he throws up?

[Dannylonglegs]

It could be that the lunch thief is a lunch itself, like Jimmy's was apparently, and the lunches stolen were because of the use of lunches.

[Tamamono]

Actually, it occurs to me that either Penny or Jimmy (probably Penny, if I'm correct) could be the lunch thief/some other scum claiming to have had their lunch stolen to gain town cred. I remember an egyptian story in which two scum claimed to be blocked in a night and a crazy scorpion ball making cook thought it was a triple block.

The question is, would scum be so bold? It's a risky move, but it could have a good payoff - I can't imagine there being any reason for town to be able to steal lunch.

[Scubacarrot]

The death yesterday can't be a scum kill. For a day kill, with no defense from it? Killing her would be have to be the single worst choice they could have made. I think it's an act from god. Do we have information that that is not the case?

As for something else, so I was eating my lunch while watching the hedgehog, Oscar, and saw someone do something interesting. I'm giving this person, they know who they are, some time to explain, or we lynch them.

[Tamamono]

Dannylonglegs, on 07 December 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

It could be that the lunch thief is a lunch itself, like Jimmy's was apparently, and the lunches stolen were because of the use of lunches.

I suppose this is possible as well, although lunch seems to be a not-so-useful little add-on to the situation from what we've seen so far; wouldn't a lunch-stealing-lunch be a bit overpowered? If you steal a townie's lunch, you can just let them know and pretty much clear them, but if you steal a scummo's lunch, it'll likely be obvious (unless some scum have lunches that look semi-town).

[Scubacarrot]

Tamamono, on 07 December 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

I suppose this is possible as well, although lunch seems to be a not-so-useful little add-on to the situation from what we've seen so far; wouldn't a lunch-stealing-lunch be a bit overpowered? If you steal a townie's lunch, you can just let them know and pretty much clear them, but if you steal a scummo's lunch, it'll likely be obvious (unless some scum have lunches that look semi-town).

What makes you think a townie's lynch differs from a scum's lunch?

[Tamamono]

Scubacarrot, on 07 December 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

What makes you think a townie's lynch differs from a scum's lunch?

I doubt a scum would benefit from investigation much.

[Scubacarrot]

Tamamono, on 07 December 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

I doubt a scum would benefit from investigation much.

Well my lunch was something that could be useful to either scum or town. And I am town, so that argument is invalid. I don't know, of course, but I would not count on it that the lunches have been assigned randomly.

That sounded weird, I meant: I think that the lunches have been assigned randomly, not based on allegiance or more specific than that.

[fhomess]

Jimmy and Penny strike me as rather strange lunch steal targets.  Neither had claimed a lunch yesterday.  I suppose it would have been a good way to avoid detection perhaps.  Maybe lunches that steal lunches are merely a way of adding some confusion to the mix.

Daisy, were you eating your lunch at night or during the day when you saw this other person stroking Oscar's quills?  I assume at night from what you said, but we always eat lunch during the day back at my ranch.

[Tamamono]

Scubacarrot, on 07 December 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

Well my lunch was something that could be useful to either scum or town. And I am town, so that argument is invalid. I don't know, of course, but I would not count on it that the lunches have been assigned randomly.

No? Sure, I think it's clear that Trisha's investigation lunch appears more than once in the rotation (Oscar said so himself, even), but generally these things are always random. What are you suggesting?

[Scubacarrot]

fhomess, on 07 December 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

Jimmy and Penny strike me as rather strange lunch steal targets.  Neither had claimed a lunch yesterday.  I suppose it would have been a good way to avoid detection perhaps.  Maybe lunches that steal lunches are merely a way of adding some confusion to the mix.

Or scum did not receive lunch and they are trying to be safe when people asked them what they did with them...

Tamamono, on 07 December 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

No? Sure, I think it's clear that Trisha's investigation lunch appears more than once in the rotation (Oscar said so himself, even), but generally these things are always random. What are you suggesting?

I was not very clear there, what I meant was that I'd think lunches would be assigned randomly, I THINK trying to find a pattern isn't going to be that great.

I could be very wrong of course, but my lunch was a one shot watch where I could see one person other than myself target the person I chose. I targetted Oscar. The person I saw is clear, for now.

[Zepher]

Dannylonglegs, on 07 December 2012 - 06:32 AM, said:

A. I don't see any evidence. I think you may be referring to Zara's death yesterday as evidence, right? I think that was a death enacted by God's will after she neglected to put a picture of her face and her name on her holy name-tag by the end if voting as god told her to.
D. Zara would be a dumb target for the scum: she was non-participatory and not as likely to be meta-killed.

I strongly believe that we would have been told if God knocked someone off.  I also agree Zara makes no sense as a kill for either a vig or the scum, so that leaves a day SK.  Time will tell... this debate should be over in a few hours, when someone either dies, or doesn't die.  It may be gruesome, but it's no doubt the best way to see if it's a one time deal or not.

VolcanicPanik, on 07 December 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

This is so sad, and disappointing. Two towns in a day/night. In other news, my beef pasty got stolen in the night

So close to participating and giving thoughts.  Thank you for coming forth with information, though.  I'm really not only trying to light a fire under your megablocks, but all of those who seem to give... well, next to no input.  I'd particularly like to hear from Mike after his less than satisfactory vote reasoning yesterday.  And perhaps all those who didn't get a chance to vote.  We're looking into Jane, I agree that I'd like to hear from her as well.

Scubacarrot, on 07 December 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

As for something else, so I was eating my lunch while watching the hedgehog, Oscar, and saw someone do something interesting. I'm giving this person, they know who they are, some time to explain, or we lynch them.

Sounds very promising.  It will at least give us something to discuss.  And we NEED town discussing.

As for the lunch debate, I too agree that they were most likely assigned at random.  It seems much simpler that way, and nothing we've heard about any of the lunches indicates that they'd be more useful to one side as opposed to the other, right?  One that steals could be useful to both town (taking lunches from scum) and scum (taking lunches from town).  What is the other one?  A watcher (is that what Daisy is claiming?)  Also useful to both sides.  I don't know how much reliance we can put in certain types of lunches outright being given to one side as opposed to the other.

[Scubacarrot]

By the way, the kill for Zara made no sense for a Serial Killer either. The reason serial killers tend to go for non participating, quiet people is because they are extremely unlikely to be protected or watched or any of that. Since this was supposedly a day kill, I still think it was an act from god or something else, they'd have no reason not to go for someone who would be likely to get on their trail later, and Zara, sorry, just was not that person.

[Zepher]

Again, without being too closed to conversation, I think the best way to see if it was an act of God or not is to wait a few hours and see if anyone drops dead around lunch time.  There's no real way to prove it one way or another until then.  

[Dannylonglegs]

Zepher, on 07 December 2012 - 07:33 AM, said:

Again, without being too closed to conversation, I think the best way to see if it was an act of God or not is to wait a few hours and see if anyone drops dead around lunch time.  There's no real way to prove it one way or another until then.  

Well, we'd be waiting a very long time I think, as last time it only happened near the end of voting.

[Zepher]

Yes, yes, I know, but there's really no definitive way to prove it through debate unless someone steps forward and claims to either a) have found a day killer (awesome!), b) admit to being a day killer (awesome if they're the SK, which is again the only possible day killer I think) or c) admit to having a day action such as day protection (not so awesome, please keep this under wraps if you exist).  I'm just hoping we don't waste time on debating it, because I don't think that us discussing it will prove it one way or another.  That being said, I did state I think they're a SK, but there's no point prolonging that discussion.

[TheBoyWonder]

Hmmmmm. I look forward to Daisy's revelation, might lead to a scum. As for Trisha, I'm disappointed in her, however, she seems to flail or be dramatic all the time.